Provable Abstinence Greater Than Two Years

G

Guest

Guest
Hi.

Someone with two DUI's, but from 15 years ago, are having to go through a HIMS psych evaluation, then are required to engage with a HIMS AME for sponsorship and monitoring for 3rd class medicals.

Let's say that, in accordance with 14 CFR 67.307(a)(4), the applicant now has over two years provable sustained total abstinence from alcohol and all mind/mood altering substances. Why are they still required to engage with a HIMS AME and go the special issuance route if they have provable sobriety going beyond two years?
 
The FAA wants to prove it to themselves ...

(I'm not a doc and missed my reservation at the Holiday Inn Express)
 
rk911 said:
how is it possible to prove "sustained total abstinence from alcohol"?
Click to expand...

The FAA's random test protocol is a 10 panel test with EtG at a frequency of no less than 14 random tests within a 12 month period.
 
1) In this (and other) aspects, the FAA is ruling by internal unpublished policy, rather than LEGAL regulation. It’s a problem.

B) Abstinence cannot be proven. Period. We don’t have the technology. Morons that think things like ETG and PETH tests prove anything, also must believe in truth serum…. Spoiler alert, James Bond, Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny aren’t real either.* Sorry.

I don’t know how to make the FAA follow THEIR OWN laws. Getting them to follow other agency laws would be nice too, but at least following their own would be a nice start.

*Leprechauns, however, exist. I’m certain of it. Especially on St Pats day.
 
Guest said:
The FAA's random test protocol is a 10 panel test with EtG at a frequency of no less than 14 random tests within a 12 month period.
Click to expand...

This “protocol” does no more to prove compliance with draconian abstinence, than to prove violation of that policy.
 
2 DUIs from that long ago doesn't necessarily imply HIMS as a requirement. There is a high chance, but if all the documentation looks good then they may not require HIMS monitoring.
 
Well...........how "big" were the twin DUIs? ("no blow" doesn't help you.....). You are likley to requrie HIMS assets for evaluation, but not necessarily HIMS.
 
Guest said:
Why are they still required to engage with a HIMS AME and go the special issuance route if they have provable sobriety going beyond two years?
Click to expand...

Because the FAA says so. The time to make a wise decision would have been before the DUI.
 
bbchien said:
Well...........how "big" were the twin DUIs? ("no blow" doesn't help you.....). You are likley to requrie HIMS assets for evaluation, but not necessarily HIMS.
Click to expand...

The first was 0.12 (state law at that time was 0.10). The 2nd was 5 years later at 0.13.
 
Good, actually. No demonstration of tolerance. Likely “abuse”, which is issuable after just 4 month’s proven abstinence….but a HIMS psychiatrist has to concur…..

You will be peeing in the cup for 2 years after that, however, on the “special."
 
Tools said:
1) In this (and other) aspects, the FAA is ruling by internal unpublished policy, rather than LEGAL regulation. It’s a problem.
Click to expand...
What do you suppose would happen if the FAA abandoned the whole effort to require proof of continuous sobriety? Would there be a significant difference in the number of pilots flying under the influence of alcohol? I have to believe that very few pilots EVER even consider flying after consuming any alcohol, even though they may not share that caution when driving. Would random sobriety checks at airports accomplish the same goal if failure resulted in immediate mandatory certificate revocation? And if a person is reckless enough to fly under the influence, shouldn't they be kept from driving as well?

I don't know the answers, but I do wonder . . .
 
dbahn said:
…. I have to believe that very few pilots EVER even consider flying after consuming any alcohol, even though they may not share that caution when driving. . . .
Click to expand...
I don’t think there is a large number of people who randomly decide while sober that today will be the day they get a DUI, yet people have been getting DUIs for 8 hours already. The insurance industry figures a little less than 2.5% of US drivers have a DUI on record. I’d guess that to be statistically accurate.

From a long ago study….
…Kathleen McFadden, a researcher at Northern Illinois University, studied the driving and flying records of more than 70,000 airline pilots over a seven-year period. The results were sobering.

She compared records from the National Driver Register database with the accident/incident database. The good news is that 98 percent of airline pilots had never received a DWI conviction. The bad news is that those who had received a DWI were more likely to have had an aviation accident. And it gets worse from there. A history of one DWI conviction was associated with double the risk of a pilot-error accident. Two or more convictions more than quadrupled the risk — this despite the fact that no pilot tested positive for alcohol during any post-accident investigation during the study period.​

https://www.avweb.com/flight-safety/technique/cocktails-cockpit/
 
TCABM said:
I don’t think there is a large number of people who randomly decide while sober that today will be the day they get a DUI, yet people have been getting DUIs for 8 hours already. The insurance industry figures a little less than 2.5% of US drivers have a DUI on record. I’d guess that to be statistically accurate.

From a long ago study….
…Kathleen McFadden, a researcher at Northern Illinois University, studied the driving and flying records of more than 70,000 airline pilots over a seven-year period. The results were sobering.

She compared records from the National Driver Register database with the accident/incident database. The good news is that 98 percent of airline pilots had never received a DWI conviction. The bad news is that those who had received a DWI were more likely to have had an aviation accident. And it gets worse from there. A history of one DWI conviction was associated with double the risk of a pilot-error accident. Two or more convictions more than quadrupled the risk — this despite the fact that no pilot tested positive for alcohol during any post-accident investigation during the study period.​

https://www.avweb.com/flight-safety/technique/cocktails-cockpit/
Click to expand...
People who have bad judgment have bad judgment.
 
Last edited:
The Botch and Johnson study in 2007, upon which much of the FAA's stance on this issue seems to be founded, is based on 11 of 2391 fatal accidents over the 7 years from 2000 to 2007 in which the NTSB identified alcohol as a cause or factor where a post- mortem bac of .04 or greater was present in the pilot. Pretty small numbers.

Does the "have you ever in your life" question really make the skies safer than " have you in the past ten years?" I don't know, and I doubt the data exists, but reading some of the stories in this forum, the expense of cogscreen, HIMS and associated testing for 2 motor vehicle violations that took place a literal lifetime ago, for a Class 3, seem more punitive than preventative based on the relative handful of data upon which the approach is based.

Would the threat of "one more and you're done with no appeal" for the pilot with these types of records be just as effective? But like Dave, I don't know, but I do wonder...
 
Lindberg said:
People who have bad judgment have had judgment.
Click to expand...
I agree, which begs the question for all of the pilots who go through years of expense and monitoring for their Special Issuance. Has the bad judgment gone away, or just the consumption of alcohol in order to maintain their ability to fly with bad judgment?
 
Without changing the behavior which led to the prior ‘bad decision’, the propensity to make further bad decisions would remain. If one does have a fundamental change in their thinking processes then better decisions are possible. Just peeing in a cup is not likely to change decision making.
 
Last edited:
Also important to remember being in HIMS is not necessarily an indicator of poor decision making. If you think it is, you don’t know “the HIMS program”.

If you EVER, EVEN ONCE operated a car while texting, you’ve met the poor decision making criteria to be fully enrolled. However, you can be fully enrolled because of the musings of a hotel security guard.

I know a guy fully enrolled because he got caught driving around a car full of drunk pilots. BLEW A ZERO POINT ZERO as he was their designated driver! That’s some serious poor decision making.
 
I remind the medical officers constantly, they never hear about the ones that fail sobriety verification. Dave, there a quite a few who like their liquor more than aviation.
 
Last edited:
Tools said:
Also important to remember being in HIMS is not necessarily an indicator of poor decision making. If you think it is, you don’t know “the HIMS program”.

If you EVER, EVEN ONCE operated a car while texting, you’ve met the poor decision making criteria to be fully enrolled. However, you can be fully enrolled because of the musings of a hotel security guard.

I know a guy fully enrolled because he got caught driving around a car full of drunk pilots. BLEW A ZERO POINT ZERO as he was their designated driver! That’s some serious poor decision making.
Click to expand...

These are the kind of rank injustices that create the climate of loss of credibility the FAA is ultimately deserving in earning. To allow such rank injustices to stand on the basis of size of bureaucracy, inertia rationalizations and ultimately, political expediency, is to work against the very charter of shielding the flying public from bad actors they purport to uphold as their driving ethos. Unreal; the apathy and cowardice (pension-guarding behavior) of the petty functionary.
 
robin ardoin said:
Without changing the behavior which led to the prior ‘bad decision’, the propensity to make further bad decisions would remain. If one does have a fundamental change in their thinking processes then better decisions are possible. Just peeing in a cup is not likely to change decision making.
Click to expand...
And that is part of RECOVERY vs. "Just" Abstinence.....
 
mryan75 said:
It would make absolutely no difference to a real-life drunk. None.
Click to expand...

Nah. Every single 'real-life drunk' that went into recovery and got dry had some event that triggered it. A threat like that could well be that event for some people.
 
mryan75 said:
Not a chance.
Click to expand...

You need to go to more AA meetings. They are filled with people in recovery because of threats like this from judges, bosses or loved ones. I'm not speaking hypothetically. I've talked with people who have been in decades long recovery that you dismiss as not having a chance.
 
Wait… you’re saying judges FORCED people to a religious activity? And their “recovery” is a useful metric how?

I was under the impression that a TRUE addict will continue their destructive behavior until death… knowing full well that’s the culpable result, thusly proving that even the threat of death doesn’t “scare” them straight, much less the threat of losing a certificate.

Where did I go wrong?

Is it possible someone forced to comply with AA attendance may not actually be a true addict? Which would then possibly allow them the ability to be scared straight? Having not been cursed with the genetic inability to do otherwise?

Side note, I can’t see the value of government forcing people to “treat” their “illness” in such a way…
 
Guest said:
Hi.

Someone with two DUI's, but from 15 years ago, are having to go through a HIMS psych evaluation, then are required to engage with a HIMS AME for sponsorship and monitoring for 3rd class medicals.

Let's say that, in accordance with 14 CFR 67.307(a)(4), the applicant now has over two years provable sustained total abstinence from alcohol and all mind/mood altering substances. Why are they still required to engage with a HIMS AME and go the special issuance route if they have provable sobriety going beyond two years?
Click to expand...

As someone who has recently had to go the HIMS route with (at the time) 19 years of complete abstinence from mind and mood-altering drugs and alcohol along with having a life active in recovery (including some documentation from the early years, none from the middle, and supporting letters from respectable members of my local society who are also "in the program" from recent years), the FAA holds to the clause from 67.307(a)(4): "...established clinical evidence, satisfactory to the Federal Air Surgeon, of recovery..." (emphasis mine). A person can have been sober for 20 years, can be active in recovery (with the understanding that religion, it is not), and can be abstinent from all drugs and alcohol, and the FAA will still "trust, but verify."

I had a DUI in 1999 and got sober in 2001. I had a HIMS 6-month time-limited 3rd class with SI that had a lot of hoops to jump through, including "14 in 12 random pee in a cup," meet with my HIMS AME once/quarter (every other time could be virtual), and have my "sheet" signed at AA meetings at least twice/week. I hoped to have all of those limitations dropped after having a relationship with the FAA. Doc said it wasn't likely, so I jumped to Basic Med as of Jan 2023. FAA later came back dropping the random urinary analyses and said I only had to meet with my HIMS AME twice/year but kept the 6-month time limitation. No thanks. The FAA could still yank that 3rd class any time they wanted if I stayed there.

Really enjoying the comments about how people with bad judgement (e.g., people who get DUIs) can never develop good judgement. That's a hoot!
 
Tools said:
Also important to remember being in HIMS is not necessarily an indicator of poor decision making. If you think it is, you don’t know “the HIMS program”.

If you EVER, EVEN ONCE operated a car while texting, you’ve met the poor decision making criteria to be fully enrolled. However, you can be fully enrolled because of the musings of a hotel security guard.

I know a guy fully enrolled because he got caught driving around a car full of drunk pilots. BLEW A ZERO POINT ZERO as he was their designated driver! That’s some serious poor decision making.
Click to expand...

There HAS to be more this story than what meets the eye. This guy didn't violate any state statutes or FAA regulations. Sorry, I'm just not buying it, especially if the DD literally blew a 0.00 BAC.
 
I misspoke. He did not blow. He preferred to give blood, as he does not trust breathalyzers which is NOT a refusal. In order to legally draw blood, he was arrested.

All legal action was sequently completely dropped when the results came back 3 weeks or so later, but he was in rehab at the time. Of course he didn’t get the results until he was released. But the results were 0.0.

Any less aggregious?

There are LOTS of people forced into HIMS with no state statute, FAR, or ANY SORT of violations, and not “voluntarily” except they are told by union reps that they will lose their medical forever if they don’t “volunteer” to go to rehab and accept a alcohol use disorder diagnosis.
 
Last edited:
Tools said:
I misspoke. He did not blow. He preferred to give blood, as he does not trust breathalyzers which is NOT a refusal. In order to legally draw blood, he was arrested.

All legal action was sequently completely dropped when the results came back 3 weeks or so later, but he was in rehab at the time. Of course he didn’t get the results until he was released. But the results were 0.0.

Any less aggregious?

There are LOTS of people forced into HIMS with no state statute, FAR, or ANY SORT of violations, and not “voluntarily” except they are told by union reps that they will lose their medical forever if they don’t “volunteer” to go to rehab and accept a alcohol use disorder diagnosis.
Click to expand...

Something tells me it was the arrest that got him. They didn't care WHY he was arrested. They didn't care that they had to in order to draw blood, which was his legal choice. All the FAA sees is the arrest itself.
 
Jon Wilder said:
Something tells me it was the arrest that got him. They didn't care WHY he was arrested. They didn't care that they had to in order to draw blood, which was his legal choice. All the FAA sees is the arrest itself.
Click to expand...
FAA: Guilty until proven innocent.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top